I had read and seen all those before. I particularly like the Saturday Down South article even if they are largely an SEC mouthpiece. As tarheel blue said, and the statement he linked really clarifies, the ACC is in a tenuous position at best and the walking dead, at worst.

Now for our former discussions. First, I never disputed there was not a gap and you can review the previous threads to reverify. I did challenge you on your initial estimate as being too high and not "conservative" and asked to you to explain. I also contended, rightly so that the current ACC numbers were low and would rise. Also never said the SEC would not rise as well or that the future gap would/could not widen, just not determinable at present. My second challenge to your statements came when you chimed in to my response contending that there were way too many questions remaining to be answered. Please note my response was to another poster, not to you, because I figured the same response to you would lead down the road we got to. You indicated it was simple. My position was, and still is, if the gap you are trying to close is not necessarily known, even if a wide range can be estimated and the landscape under which you will operate is an even bigger unknown, then any plan is a WAG at best, if determinable at all. My subsequent challenge to you, as you disagreed with my assessment that there were too many questions unknown, was that if it was so simple as you asserted then instead of asking the question why not offer your solution and let discussion proceed from there.

I will respond to your current question in much the same manner. I absolutely cannot tell you what might cut that deficit for the same reasons as previously delineated. Those reasons, as previously told to you, are not an attempt to sidestep the question but, to explain why I do not believe the question can be reasonably answered at present with current information known. I once again acknowledge the deficit and while I do not believe the current deficit is as large as you assert, I do not dispute the future deficit may be larger than either one of us realize. Again, I cannot answer your question and I would say if you believe an answer is really that simple a more efficient path to discussion is to offer your solution and let the discussion proceed from there.

My final thought is that the best point is the one made in the Saturday Down South article. While ironic, conference expansion is actually about contraction and cutting the deadweight, while dividing the pie in fewer but, larger pieces. Regardless of what happens, there will be deficits and revenue imbalances and the only way that gets reduced or managed is to follow the national pro sports leagues that employ a variety of tools to balance revenue and control spending. I too believe we both love VT, we just look at the current situation from different perspectives. I believe the landscape and a lot of the questions I believe are currently unanswerable will clear by 2025, if not before, and as I have said in other posts, I doubt the GOR for the ACC gets near its expiration. I think it is doing what it was designed to do, provide short term stability and, more importantly, get the ACC the media partner it wanted. This is one point where I disagree with the guys from Saturday Down South. They view the long term GOR as a source of instability while I think it kept the ACC from being the Big 12 at present. As a collection of largely smaller public schools and even smaller private institutions, the ACC was behind the eight ball in college athletics from a long time back and, just like Jim Valvano and the Cardiac Pack or a weaker side in battle, the goal is to always extend the game with the ultimate goal of surviving and advancing. At some point, the landscape will shift, maybe it already has, and surviving and advancing becomes a task of getting your members, all of them, to their next best level of operation.

I agree GO HOKIES!!!